Site Mobile Navigation

Term-Limits Case Hinders Council Hopefuls

Any New Yorker who thought that laws governing term limits had been made final a decade ago need look only to events of the last month to see how uncertain things remain, not only for six City Council members whose terms could end this year but also for dozens of candidates who hope to succeed them.

Consider Yasmin Hurston Cornelius, who teaches about childbirth and is a former aide to the Manhattan borough president, C. Virginia Fields. Ms. Cornelius spent the last year making plans to run in 2005 for the central Harlem council seat currently occupied by Bill Perkins, who under the city's term-limits laws would be ineligible to run for re-election that year.

But a State Supreme Court ruling on term limits last month has left Mr. Perkins and five fellow council members, including the speaker, Gifford Miller, facing the possibility that they will have to leave office at the end of this year.

The ruling has also created no shortage of uncertainty for a host of candidates who, like Ms. Cornelius, feel compelled to kick their campaign plans into high gear in the next two months.

She said she had been slowly forming a strategy that involved contacting community and political leaders in advance of a 2005 run for office. ''But with the court decision, you have to be prepared to do it now, or you might miss out on the opportunity,'' she said. ''And when you don't know what's going to happen, you have to be prepared for anything.''

The court ruling stemmed from the Council's decision last September to pass a law meant to adjust a quirk in the term-limits law.

In two referendums in the 1990's, New Yorkers approved a law that limited elected officials to two terms.

But every 10 years, council members' terms are shortened to two years from four to allow the city to draw new districts to accommodate population shifts reflected in each new federal census. Thus, some members have to leave office after only six years, effectively a term and a half, while most serve eight years, or a full two terms.

The Council revised the law to allow the six members affected by the 2000 census redistricting -- Mr. Miller, Mr. Perkins, Philip Reed and Margarita Lopez of Manhattan; Tracy L. Boyland of Brooklyn; and Madeline Provenzano of the Bronx -- to run again.

The court ruled, however, that such a revision could be accomplished only by referendum. The Council is appealing, and arguments are scheduled for Thursday. The case is expected to be resolved before June.

But June is the month in which, thanks to the court ruling, council candidates must begin collecting petitions signed by 900 registered voters, the amount needed to qualify for a place on the ballot.

''It's put a lot of people into a holding pattern,'' said Daniel R. Garodnick, a lawyer who is considering running for a council seat from the East Side of Manhattan. ''As a result, people who are interested in running, like me, are now reaching out to community leaders and trying to raise money quickly.''

Mr. Garodnick, the president of the Tilden Democratic Club, has already formed a campaign committee and has begun raising money, but has not firmly decided whether to seek the seat in a district on the Lower East Side where he was raised or in the district immediately to the north where he has lived in recent years.

If the court decision stands, it will force Mr. Garodnick to decide far earlier than he had intended. Mr. Garodnick said he had raised nearly $20,000. ''And I have been reaching out to people,'' he said. ''But I've had to move a little more quickly, just in case.''

Other potential candidates said they thought Mr. Garodnick had a distinct advantage because he did not work for, or have a close relationship with, a council incumbent whose term could end this year.

In interviews, several candidates, all speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said that they did not want to start campaigning before the appeals process played out so as not to appear disloyal.

But some politicians and political analysts suggest that such candidates will be greatly hampered if the State Supreme Court's decision is upheld and the six council members are unable to run for re-election.

''The people who are playing their cards close to the vest and not committing themselves are at a great disadvantage,'' said Christopher J. Malone, an assistant professor of political science at Pace University.

''If they haven't started to raise money, if they haven't talked to party leaders, they are several steps behind what other candidates are doing,'' Mr. Malone said. ''If you have any plans to run this year, you have to have started like yesterday. And if this decision doesn't come until June, and the ruling is upheld, you could have a week to get organized.''

While the current uncertainty might discomfit some potential candidates, the six council members it will directly affect do not seem fazed at the possibility that they may be out of office in a matter of months. They say they are certain that the court decision will be reversed and that they will be allowed to serve until 2005.